SUBSCRIBE:

Share

(IPI/IFEX) - Last year, Colombia's Press Freedom Foundation (FLIP, according to its Spanish acronym) published a printed manual for journalists facing libel and insult charges. This past month, the organisation released an online version of the manual, “so that any journalist could access it,” FLIP director Andrés Morales explained to the Knight Foundation.

The International Press Institute (IPI), which is currently leading a campaign to abolish criminal defamation in the Caribbean, spoke to Pedro Vaca, FLIP legal advisor, about the need for such a manual and a series of recent criminal defamation cases in Colombia.

IPI: Why did FLIP decide to publish a manual for journalists facing libel or insult charges?

FLIP: Basically for three reasons: [first] in Colombia the number of journalists killings has gone down, but other means of censorship, such as legal actions against the press, have increased; [second] since 2002 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has produced a series of standards that protect freedom of expression when the latter is questioned by the courts; [third] journalists and judicial authorities in Colombia are not familiar enough with those standards.

FLIP saw the need to compile and present in an informative way the most controversial and recurrent aspects that we have seen in cases of libel and insult.

IPI: The manual states that the activities of public and elected officials should be more open to public scrutiny. Why is this the case and how can a journalist know if the information he or she possesses about an official is actually in the public interest?

FLIP: This is precisely one of the most controversial aspects [of libel cases], but if one looks more closely at the standards it is easy enough to sort out. The IACHR and the Colombian Constitutional Court have clearly indicated that when a person inserts him- or herself voluntarily into the public sphere two things happen: first, the official must be more tolerant of criticism; and second, his or her right to privacy becomes narrower in comparison to private citizens. The latter stipulation is based on the idea that society has a legitimate interest in knowing about the conduct of public officials.

Without a doubt, there are limits to this concept. The type of speech that is protected is that which relate directly to the exercise of public authority. As such, information related to the private life of an official, for example, is not in the public interest.

IPI: Are there cases in Colombia in which a reporter or media outlet has not published certain information in order to avoid legal action?

FLIP: We are contacted by journalists who wonder whether a certain article could give rise to possible legal action, but we are not aware of a case in which information has not been published out of fear of criminal [libel or insult] charges.

In Colombia, legal actions are not the main cause of self censorship. Other aspects, such as established fear in some regions, the presence of armed groups, and even the economic survival of the media are usually more decisive in the decision not to publish an article.

IPI: Is there a movement in Colombia to decriminalise defamation? What barriers would such a movement face and how could these be overcome?

FLIP: Such a movement does not exist. What we have seen are judicial debates [on defamation and libel] that have fallen to the Constitutional Court to resolve. In 2009, in a case supported by FLIP, it was declared that when a public official is absolved of an offence (for example, corruption), that decision entails no obligations on the part of the press. In other words, a journalist can publish information about the alleged corruption of a public official even if the latter has been legally acquitted of the alleged acts: judicial truth and journalistic truth are two different truths and neither takes precedence over the other.

Another debate considered a motion to decriminalise libel and insult. In this case the Court did not agree to abolish those laws, but did impose a system of strict checks to ensure that a libel or insult action would not infringe on freedom of expression. The challenge now is to ensure that these checks are carried out.

IPI: In 2012, journalists in Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, and Colombia were sentenced to prison for defamation. Do criminal defamation laws constitute a growing threat to freedom of expression in Latin America?

FLIP: The Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression [OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression] has declared that the use of insult and slander charges to restrict freedom of expression is disproportionate. Without a doubt, there is a hemisphere-wide challenge not only with respect to the existence of these laws, but also in regards to other aspects such as [promoting] a democratic attitude on the part of the authorities—that is, understanding that criticism or reflection are not something negative. This is a cultural concept that is not being well incorporated into the region.

*Note on terms:
Insult (injuria) refers, in the Spanish-speaking world, to insults and expressions of scorn or invective when these are not accompanied by specific accusations.

Libel (calumnia) is the written form of defamation, which may be understood as a communication (usually an allegation or accusation), either written or spoken, containing a statement that harms the reputation or honour of the subject of the communication, generally by identifying a negative character trait or course of action that exposes the subject to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.

After already cracking down on freedom of information in recent years, President Erdoğan has taken advantage of the abortive coup d’état and the state of emergency in effect since 20 July to silence many more of his media critics, not only Gülen movement media and journalists but also, to a lesser extent, Kurdish, secularist and left-wing media.

This publication presents the findings of the media development assessment in Mongolia that began in 2012 to determine the state of the media in the country. The assessment was based on the UNESCO/IPDC Media Development Indicators (MDIs), an internationally recognized analytical tool used to provide detailed overviews of national media landscapes and related media development priorities.

“After the initial optimism during the Euromaidan movement, many journalists have become disillusioned. They are faced with the triple challenge of the war in the Eastern part of the country, the economic crisis and the digitalization of mass media.”

An officer of the Myanmar army recently filed a criminal complaint against two journalists for allegedly sowing disunity among the military. Even though mediation by the Press Council caused the military to withdraw the case, this incident demonstrates how the military continues to throw its weight to get back at what it perceives as negative publicity.

The government uses draconian laws such as the sedition provisions of the penal code, the criminal defamation law, and laws dealing with hate speech to silence dissent. These laws are vaguely worded, overly broad, and prone to misuse, and have been repeatedly used for political purposes against critics at the national and state level.

In recent years, the space afforded to civil society to operate freely has been shrinking dramatically across the world, presenting a serious threat to democracy and human rights. Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) have been especially badly affected by this shrinking political space.

The report is a frank assessment of the recent regime of online censorship and mass surveillance against a backdrop of longstanding, serious abuses of the judicial process and attacks on freedom of expression by Turkish authorities.

The report surveys the rocky landscape for media and public discourse since the ruling military junta lifted the curtain on the southeast Asian nation in 2012 after five decades of isolation from the modern world.

With the environment now recognized as a major challenge for humankind, Reporters Without Borders believes that particular attention should be paid to the journalists who take greats risk to investigate sensitive, environment-related subjects. The report highlights a steady deterioration in the situation for environmental reporters, who are increasingly exposed to many kinds of pressure, threats and violence.

The Pakistani government has significantly expanded its communication interception activities. This Privacy International report covers the intelligence services plan to capture all IP-traffic in Pakistan and other initiatives, pointing to gaps in the laws governing surveillance.

The need to regulate the transfer of surveillance technologies that pose a risk to human rights has been largely recognised by EU institutions and some EU member states. It is no longer a question of if the EU should do more in this area, but how.

Defamation and insult remain criminal offences in Portugal punishable by up to two years behind bars despite the fact that a number of international human rights bodies have found criminal defamation to be a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression.

Despite its Constitutional commitment to free speech, India’s legal system makes it surprisingly easy to silence others. Routine corruption, inefficiency, and the selective enforcement of vague and overbroad laws allow individuals, or small groups, to censor opinions they find distasteful. - See more at: http://www.pen-international.org/the-india-report-executive-summary-and-key-findings/#sthash.TIIM2xbu.dpuf

Press freedom in the Philippines continued to be under attack from 2014 to 2015. The killing of journalists is continuing, with four journalists killed from May 2014 to May 2015. The trial of the accused masterminds of the Ampatuan (Maguindanao) Massacre and their supposed henchmen is continuing, but with a primary accused was released, while a witness in the same case was killed.

The year 2014 saw Malaysians standing up to exercise the rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution, including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. This continues a growing trend of facing up to state oppression. Unfortunately, this has been met with increasing repression. Malaysia has seen a concerted crackdown on the freedom of expression in the year 2014, which has escalated even further in 2015.

IFEX publishes original and member-produced free expression news and reports. Some member content has been edited by IFEX. We invite you to contact [email protected] to request permission to reproduce or republish in whole or in part content from this site.